In July 1954, Israeli Military Intelligence ordered an espionage network of Egyptian Jews it had formed three years earlier to launch "Operation Susannah" -- a campaign to fire bomb the main Alexandria post office, the United States Information Agency offices in Cairo and Alexandria, the Cairo train station, and several movie theaters in Cairo and Alexandria. The saboteurs (today we would call them terrorists, especially if they were Arabs or Muslims acting against Israel or the United States) were quickly apprehended and brought to trial in December 1954. The verdicts and sentences delivered in January 1955 spanned the range of options. Sami (Shmu`el) Azar and Musa (Moshe) Marzuq were sentenced to death along with the Israeli handlers of the network -- John Darling (Avraham Dar) and Paul Frank (Avraham Seidenwerg) -- who were not apprehended and tried in absentia. Me'ir Meyuhas and Me'ir Za`fran received seven years in prison. Victor Levy and Philip Natanson were sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Marcelle Ninio and Robert Dassa were condemned to life in prison. Caesar Cohen and Eli Na`im were acquitted. Max Binnet, an Israeli spy apprehended with the network but not directly involved in its operations, committed suicide in jail.[1] Here, I do not propose to revisit the perennial question in Israeli politics, "Who gave the order?" -- the focal point of a still unresolved political scandal labeled the "Lavon affair" or, in the sanitized discourse of national security, "the mishap" [ha-`esek ha-bish].[2] Instead, I will use the apology for the operation offered in the name of four members of the network -- Marcelle Ninio, Victor Levy, Robert Dassa, and Philip Natanson -- to open a discussion of the identities and loyalties of Egyptian Jews.

After fourteen years in Egyptian jails, the four reached Israel in the prisoner exchange following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Their presence in the country was an official secret until 1971, when Prime Minister Golda Meir announced her intention to attend Marcelle Ninio's wedding. Not until March 1975, when the four told their story publicly for the first time on national television, did an Israeli government acknowledge that they had been trained and directed by the Israeli army. Aviezer Golan compiled an authorized collective memoir, Operation Susannah (the code name for the bombing campaign), and explained that their actions did not constitute treason against Egypt because

The foursome -- like all the other heroes of 'the mishap' -- were born and brought up in Egypt, but they never regarded themselves -- nor were they ever regarded by others -- as Egyptians. . . .They were typical members of Egypt's Jewish community. . . .It was a community with shallow roots. The Jews reached Egypt during the second half of the nineteenth century or the beginning of the twentieth. . . .[T]hey could not read or write Arabic, and spoke no more of the language than was necessary for the simplest daily needs. . . .All of Egypt's Jews could have been considered Zionists -- or, to be more precise, 'lovers of Zion.'[3]

I have no idea how your "math is wrong," as this seems to be a running discussion with two other members of the board.

I do know that 1954 was quite some time ago.

The fact that "The mishap" is a common Israeli term for the Lavon Affair might clue you in to the government's feelings regarding the case.

I liked many of the linked articles; they are full of the sort of nuances that make this sort of discussion interesting, even when your intent is to distance Americans from their closest ally in the Middle East, based on the events between the 1948 and 1956 wars.

It is no wonder the Israelis denied involvement for decades.

Now then: do you think that Israeli actions in the last 53 years have borne out a tendency for that nation to attack American interests?

How about Iranian actions in the last 53 years? Iraqi? Lebanese?

Has Israel, however, taken actions or exercised restraint, precisely on American request? I recall a nation in gas masks in the early 90s, with missiles raining down, and that nation accepting her ally's request that she not retaliate.

You're digging very deep to find stories to discredit Israel, and to make Israel look like America's enemy. 1954. Huh. And you couldn't stop in 1992 to find the counter-example? Or for that matter, any time in this century, or most of the previous one?

During part of the time period you concern yourself with, Stalin was still in charge of the U.S.S.R.; I don't think I have to catalog that individual's despicable acts, nor his anti-American sentiments prior to and subsequent to World War II. Yet I doubt very seriously you argued vehemently that the U.S. should be at odds with the USSR, or presently, that we should be at odds with Russia, based on that fact.

You're on a scavenger hunt. I see the web-sites too, ranging from quasi-leftist to neo-nazi. David Duke is on your side, telling Mearsheimer and Walt that they should just be more honest about it. Vanity Fair points out Jewish influence. The New York Times falls all over itself to give such sentiments a hearing.

These sentiments are on the rise: There is an unpopular war? It's because Israel is making American policy, through their fifth column, The Jews.

And to back up this thesis, it is important for us all to revisit every known ill that can be ascribed to Israel. I await your piercing investigation into the traitorous character of the American Jewish community (except your best friends are Jews, I know,) as well.

Just to make the premise work, and to make the war "not our fault."

We wanted it, in broad terms, referring to the electorate at large. Yes, Bush led the country with bad information, and yes, the Dems were too cowardly to really say "prove it." Yes, the press folded up tents as well. But not because of nefarious Jewish or Israeli plots. Because the press and the people are easily cowed by a president full of righteous indignation over an act of war, never mind that he fingered the wrong adversaries.

You're off track, and badly so. But you're also transparent, which is sort of a saving grace. I just don't know how Bush's misplacement of blame is made okay by a mirror-image misplacement of blame on the part of the Left.

Here's another one, killing 34 American sailors and trying to destroy the USS Liberty, to hide the facts around the 6 day war:

The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a U.S. Navy signals intelligence ship, USS Liberty, in international waters about 12.5 nautical miles (23 km) from the coast of the Sinai Peninsula, north of the Egyptian town of El Arish, by Israeli fighter planes and torpedo boats on June 8, 1967.

It occurred during the Six-Day War, a conflict between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. The Israeli attack killed 34 U.S. servicemen and wounded at least 173. The attack was the second-deadliest against a U.S. warship since the end of World War II, surpassed only by the Iraqi Exocet missile attack on the USS Stark on May 17, 1987, and marked the single greatest loss of life by the U.S. intelligence community.

The Israeli and American governments conducted multiple inquiries into the incident, and issued reports concluding that the attack was the result of a mistake, caused by confusion among the Israeli attackers about the precise identity of the USS Liberty and the fact that the United States Ambassador to the United Nations had publicly announced to the world at the U.N. that the United States had no ships within 350 miles of Israel and the battle.

Israel's official position is that the attack was not the result of an intentional targeting of an American ship. Israeli officials say they were assured by the United States that no U.S. ships were in the area, [1] and that its air and naval forces mistakenly identified Liberty as the Egyptian vessel El Quseir. Supporters of this position say Israel had no motive for a surprise attack on an important ally. They also note that the tense atmosphere of the Six-Day War created the possibility of such mistakes, and point out that the U.S. government, concerned about such dangers, ordered the Liberty further away from shore the night before the attack (bureaucratic and communications problems kept the order from arriving in time).[2] Finally, they note that the United States has several times mistakenly attacked its own and allied forces in so-called friendly fire incidents.

Others believe that the attack was deliberate and premeditated. They note that the Liberty was more than twice as large as the El Quseir, and was clearly designated with Latin rather than Arabic letters and numbers, rejecting claims that Egyptians could have intentionally mimicked a US ship as deception in war. Proponents include some of the surviving Liberty crewmen,[1] and some former U.S. government officials, including then-CIA director Richard Helms and then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk as well as Admiral Thomas Hinman Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Israel concedes that the Israeli Air Force deliberately attacked what Israel believed to be an Egyptian ship.

According to the Jewish Virtual Library, on December 17, 1987, the issue was officially closed by the two governments through an exchange of diplomatic notes. Israel also eventually paid nearly $13 million in humanitarian reparations to the United States and in compensation to the families of the victims.

The attack on 'Liberty' was fading into obscurity until last week, when intelligence expert James Bamford came out with Body of Secrets, his latest book about the National Security Agency. In a stunning revelation, Bamford writes that unknown to Israel, a US Navy EC-121 intelligence aircraft was flying high overhead the 'Liberty,' electronically recorded the attack. The US aircraft crew provides evidence that the Israeli pilots knew full well that they were attacking a US Navy ship flying the American flag.

Why did Israel try to sink a naval vessel of its benefactor and ally? Most likely because 'Liberty's' intercepts flatly contradicted Israel's claim, made at the war's beginning on 5 June, that Egypt had attacked Israel, and that Israel's massive air assault on three Arab nations was in retaliation. In fact, Israel began the war by a devastating, Pearl-Harbor style surprise attack that caught the Arabs in bed and destroyed their entire air forces.

Israel's official position is that the attack was not the result of an intentional targeting of an American ship. Israeli officials say they were assured by the United States that no U.S. ships were in the area, [1] and that its air and naval forces mistakenly identified Liberty as the Egyptian vessel El Quseir. Supporters of this position say Israel had no motive for a surprise attack on an important ally.

Click to expand...

About which more in a moment.

Others believe that the attack was deliberate and premeditated. They note that the Liberty was more than twice as large as the El Quseir, and was clearly designated with Latin rather than Arabic letters and numbers, rejecting claims that Egyptians could have intentionally mimicked a US ship as deception in war.

Click to expand...

Is the contention that the U.S. Navy actually numbers the ships with Roman numerals now? Interesting, but I have only seen Arabic-numbered American naval vessals.

This sort of sloppiness doesn't speak too well for the source's credibility, but really I am just picking the nit because it's so bloody comical.

Proponents include some of the surviving Liberty crewmen,[1] and some former U.S. government officials, including then-CIA director Richard Helms and then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk as well as Admiral Thomas Hinman Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Israel concedes that the Israeli Air Force deliberately attacked what Israel believed to be an Egyptian ship.

Click to expand...

I'm going to skip a bit now to the "what really happened" segment of our conspiracy theory program (despite the results of both American and Israeli investigations):

The attack on 'Liberty' was fading into obscurity until last week, when intelligence expert James Bamford came out with Body of Secrets, his latest book about the National Security Agency. In a stunning revelation, Bamford writes that unknown to Israel, a US Navy EC-121 intelligence aircraft was flying high overhead the 'Liberty,' electronically recorded the attack. The US aircraft crew provides evidence that the Israeli pilots knew full well that they were attacking a US Navy ship flying the American flag.

Why did Israel try to sink a naval vessel of its benefactor and ally? Most likely because 'Liberty's' intercepts flatly contradicted Israel's claim, made at the war's beginning on 5 June, that Egypt had attacked Israel, and that Israel's massive air assault on three Arab nations was in retaliation. In fact, Israel began the war by a devastating, Pearl-Harbor style surprise attack that caught the Arabs in bed and destroyed their entire air forces.

A snippet or two will be all there is room for. This is a fairly thorough read, and gets better as you go on.

What would Israel's motive have been? The argument that Israel knowingly attacked an American ship has always lacked a convincing motive. Possibilities have included:

Keeping U.S. from learning of surprise attack against Syria. In 1976, James Ennes, probably the most active critic of the official account - and one of the ship's survivors - claimed in his book Assault on the Liberty that Israel was then planning a surprise attack against Syria and feared U.S. interference; its bombing of the Liberty, he claimed, was an effort to disrupt American's ability to gather intelligence about the plan. Previously classified material released in 1997 by both Israel and the U.S. demonstrated that Israel had already informed the U.S. of its intentions, however. The theory should have disappeared thereafter, yet it resurfaced in a poorly researched History Channel production that aired in 2001 called Cover Up: Attack on the USS Liberty.

Click to expand...

June 3, 2004: Based on previously unreleased audiotapes made available by the Israeli Air Force, The Jerusalem Post published a transcript of radio and telephone transmissions between Israeli pilots and air controllers involved in the attack on the Liberty. The transcript gives a minute-by-minute account from the perspective of the Israeli forces - beginning just before the attack and continuing until the Israelis recognize the ship's identity and halt the action. The transcript of the tapes indicates that Israel did not know the ship was American when it attacked.

Click to expand...

October 10, 2003: Israeli Brig. Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector (since retired), who participated in the Liberty attack, agreed to discuss it publicly for the first time. Spector was the first pilot to get to the ship; he identified it as a military vessel that was not Israeli but could not make a specific identification. "My assumption was that it was likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I looked and there was positively no flag. Just to make sure I photographed it," Spector told The Jerusalem Post (Oct. 10, 2003).
(It may be noted that Spector was recently dismissed from the Israeli air force for signing a letter protesting the Israeli policy of targeted killing.)

Click to expand...

For reasons of length I've omitted a number of references that boil down to "strange bedfellows" arguments, such as Liberty conspiracy theorists attending conventions along with holocaust deniers and anti-Semites.

For the purposes of this bulletin board, I suggest you move past these most recent excesses when reading the timeline. I am sure they qualify as "playing the anti-Semitism card," even when they are true.

However, there seems to be a great deal of enthusiam behind this belief that Israel intentionally sank an American ship. Unfortunately, the facts don't support that belief.

Google "USS Liberty" and you'll get a parade of sites claiming that Israel is a perfidious snake in the grass. Look for the facts of the matter, and you find that, gee, sometimes the exhaustive investigations are, in fact, the authority on the matter, as fact after fact surfaces to detract from the conspiracy theorists' seeming insights.

The greatest Chutzpah in the passage cited here is the notion that Israel attacked Egypt in a "Pearl-Harbor-Like" attack.

Really.

Did the United States really announce an intention to drive Japan into the sea just prior to the attack? Did the United States really possess plans for massacres in, say, Osaka and Tokyo?

Was it really the case that the United States refused to recognize Japan diplomatically, and had the United State really been in a period of brushfire hostilities with Japan already? Was the U.S. really already shelling Japan on a regular basis, when Japan "fired first"?

The sophomoric posturing of the "Pearl-Harbor Like" characterization is on the level of partisan propaganda, pure and simple.

Well, Maverick, you've established that you very much want Israel to frequently have attacked the U.S.

Read the linked information with an open mind, and tell me how this "information" is anything but a statement that "there's another side... if you really want to believe that it was intentional, you can tell a story consistent with some of the known facts, to support your claim... despite the fact that the story does not jibe with other facts, and despite the valid explanation for the few known facts that CAN be made to align to the story."